Slashdot Log In
Transcript of Eben Moglen's Harvard Speech
Posted by
michael
on Fri Feb 27, 2004 11:55 AM
from the preaching-to-the-choir dept.
from the preaching-to-the-choir dept.
An anonymous reader writes "Groklaw has a transcript of Eben Moglen's Harvard Speech + Q&A up. Good Stuff. During the Q&A he made a good point to think about: 'We stand for free speech. We're the free speech movement of the moment. And that we have to insist upon, all the time, uncompromisingly. My dear friend, Mr. Stallman, has caused a certain amount of resistance in life by going around saying, "It's free software, it's not open source". He has a reason. This is the reason. We need to keep reminding people that what's at stake here is free speech. We need to keep reminding people that what we're doing is trying to keep the freedom of ideas in the 21st century, in a world where there are guys with little paste-it labels with price tags on it who would stick it on every idea on earth if it would make value for the shareholders. And what we have to do is to continue to reinforce the recognition that free speech in a technological society means technological free speech. I think we can do that. I think that's a deliverable message.'"
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Transcript of Eben Moglen's Harvard Speech
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 357 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Who? (Score:3, Insightful)
(http://www.metahusky.net/~gavin | Last Journal: Monday April 14 2003, @08:40AM)
FSF's General Counsel (Score:5, Informative)
Re:FSF's General Counsel (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Who? (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://www.mndfck.ath.cx/~pedro/)
The way you put it, we should tell who is speaking so people can assess if it's worth listening.
But I'd expect this is the purpose of the quote.
Re:Who? (Score:5, Informative)
(Last Journal: Wednesday August 18 2004, @05:22PM)
Groklaw
SCO
(Richard) Stallman
With apologies, these names should ring a bell to anyone who occasionally visits
I'm feeling lucky [columbia.edu]
Re:Who? (Score:5, Informative)
(Last Journal: Friday November 30, @12:50PM)
He is, however, the lead counsel for the Free Software Foundation [fsf.org](FSF) and it is in this capacity that the quote in the article writeup is relevent.
Re:Who? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Who? (Score:5, Funny)
(http://www.uio.no/~jaris)
Re:Who? (Score:5, Informative)
(http://mhvlug.org/ | Last Journal: Thursday March 11 2004, @01:55PM)
The Free Software Foundation
His Bio is Here [columbia.edu]
He was responding to the talk given by our buddy Darl McBride Text here [groklaw.net]
Re:Who? (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://www.csun.edu/~vcmgt00b)
All the poster was suggesting was that the original post would have been much more informative if it had included a second sentence that read something like "Eben Moglen is the lawyer for the Free Software Foundation and spoke at the Harvard Journal of Law and Technology lecture on the 23rd on the topic of 'SCO and After SCO: The Legal Future of Free Software'."
Wouldn't that have made the topic of the article much clearer?
Mirror of the webcast? (Score:5, Interesting)
(http://ansak.blogspot.com/ | Last Journal: Wednesday October 22 2003, @01:44PM)
I just want to hear Eben's jokes in Eben's voice. Someone worth listening to for an hour and a half is a rare bird.
cheers...ank
Legal distribution in free formats coming soon? (Score:5, Interesting)
(http://digitalcitizen.info/)
Prof. Moglen told me if the JOLT folks did not produce a free format copy of his talk, he would do so himself. The person I spoke with at Harvard said he would take the licensing issue to their board for review.
Re:Mirror of the webcast? (Score:4, Informative)
Eben Moglen resume (Score:5, Informative)
(http://desicritics.org/ | Last Journal: Tuesday March 02 2004, @03:37PM)
1994-, Professor of Law and Legal History, Columbia Law School.(current)
1987-94, Associate Professor of Law, Columbia Law School.
1986-87, Law Clerk to Justice Thurgood Marshall, United States Supreme Court.
1985-86, Law Clerk to Judge Edward Weinfeld, United States District Court, Southern District of New York.
1984, Associate, Cravath Swaine & Moore, New York.
1983, IBM Corporation, Armonk, New York, Associate Corporation Counsel
1979-84, IBM Corporation, San Jose, California, Programmer/Analyst, Programming Language Research & Development
Selected Publications
Anarchism Triumphant: Free Software and the Death of Copyright, First Monday (August, 1999)
The Invisible Barbecue, 97 Colum. L. Rev. 945 (1997).
Jewishness and the American Constitutional Tradition: The Cases of Brandeis and Frankfurter (Book Review), 89 Colum. L. Rev. 959 (1989).
Taking the Fifth: Reconsidering the History of the Privilege Against Self-Incrimination, 92 Mich. L. Rev. 1086 (1994).
The Anti-Darl (Score:5, Funny)
(http://slashdot.org/)
My guess: A flash of gamma rays.
Re:The Anti-Darl (Score:5, Funny)
Good message (Score:5, Insightful)
(Last Journal: Sunday April 11 2004, @07:41PM)
And I know that money talks and bullshit walks. Unless we get some thick-walleted lobbyists on our side, the souless corporations will continue to turn innovation and invention into commodities - and Open Source and Free Software will remain terms that no one but the choir ever hears.
Re:Good message (Score:5, Insightful)
With IRV you could vote for an independent without being concerned that you might 'spoil' an election, or 'throw your vote away'.
More importantly, you could vote for different independent, if the previous independent turned out to not represent your views, or the values he advocated at election.
Imagine being able to support Perot without risking Clinton, or voting Nader without risking Bush.
Imagine being able to vote McCain 2k4 because Bush isn't nearly as conservative as you'd like.
Or being able to say 'screw Kerry, I'll support Kucinich even if he doesn't get the nomination' - and not having to worry about your vote giving power to Bush.
(indeed party nominations only exist to tone down the chances of 2 similar candidates spoiling the race and handing it to a 3rd party.)
Get IRV and lobbying won't work because a single vote will be enough to keep you from re-election - and lobbyists can't buy everyone.
Re:Good message (Score:5, Insightful)
And the other souless corporations will continue to use the most cost effective solution, which is increasingly becoming open source.
This is what I love about the GPL. I think everyone can agree, given that a peice of software has been created, it is better for society if everyone to has access to it. The only issue at question is whether by limiting access to the software, we can provide necisarry means and motivation for more software to be written. I look at the GPL as an experiment - if copyright really does provide necissarry means and incentive to produce software then GPL'd software will never be as good as proprietary software, and will reamain on the sidelines. However if GPL'ed software does surpass and surplant proprietary software, then it is proof that there is enough means and motivation to produce software without the burden of copyright. This is increasingly showing itself to be the case.
The FSF focuses on the first issue, and think that the negative societal aspects of proprietary software are so bad that it doesn't matter whether copyright adds incentive or not, proprietary software is still intolerable.
The OSI focuses on the second issue, and think that the only important thing about free software is that it is better than proprietary software, and have provided usefull theories which help explain why this is the case.
But the real clincher is that both issues are true - that not only is software copyright harmfull, it is also unecissarry. It is for this reason that I agree with the FSF in treating it as an ethical situation, because while I am willing to put up with some "necissary evil", there is no reason to put up with proprietary software in the long run.
Can outsiders attend these lectures? (Score:5, Interesting)
(http://slashdot.org/~GillBates0 | Last Journal: Tuesday July 10, @04:36PM)
Anybody from Harvard: Am I allowed to attend lectures without being part of Harvard? Are they public lectures? Can I obtain permission to attend them?
Being a recent grad student at a tech school, I know that school ID's are seldom checked at these occasions, but would like to know if it's against the rules or something.
Thank you.
Re:Can outsiders attend these lectures? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Can outsiders attend these lectures? (Score:4, Interesting)
Because there were several interesting things stated on the announcement, such topics as DRM, TCPA etc., I did of course attend their show. Overall, it was a bit dull (and followed by a very boring marketing campaign for their firewall products), but I did not expect more. I was just curious how microsoft speaks to
the university people, who are generally more pro-linux.
I think you should know your "enemy", and, yes, If I had been in the appropiate region, I had attended McBride's speak.lecture.
Re:Can outsiders attend these lectures? (Score:4, Interesting)
Or, to put it more bluntly, McBride doesn't have a "side". He is sheer incoherence, and you only waste your time trying to follow him.
My favorite Quote (Score:5, Informative)
See the video version (Score:5, Interesting)
(http://www.edholden.com/ | Last Journal: Tuesday January 20 2004, @11:15PM)
At about an hour in length, it was quite good. I really recommend it, because it puts both SCO and the things you hear Stallman say into very nice perspective, and shows how terribly confused Darl McBride really is. In particular you should watch for Moglen's description of the problems with using Eldred v. Ashcroft to support the odd notion that the GPL is unconstitutional. Darl doesn't realize it, but his argument indicates that he and the FSF are actually on the same side of that Supreme Court case.
The Flip Side (Score:3, Interesting)
(Last Journal: Thursday November 04 2004, @10:16AM)
Does this mean that any piece of closed-source software is a threat fo Free Speech?
Are the store shelves that are stocked with closed-source games and applications threatening the world? The customers who buy them don't seem much to care.
Maybe some legislation is in order to free the source!!!!
Re:The Flip Side (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://arstechnica.com/journals/linux.ars)
Is it, now, right this moment? I really don't know for certain.
Could it be in the future? You bet.
Keeping the source open pretty well ensures that the software I use only serves my purposes, not anyone elses.
Soko
Right to not remain silent. (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://mathaddicts.org/ | Last Journal: Friday December 27 2002, @04:50AM)
The code at the bottom of this post is illegal under the DMCA. Its very illegality violates my right to free speech, because it's only legal so long as it's closed source. That's why this is about free speech, and that's why we must protect it.
It's not closed software that's the threat to free speech, it's the attacks that are being made upon open software. You have the right to remain silent, but please leave me my right to speak.
efdtt.c Author: Charles M. Hannum <root@ihack.net>
Thanks to Phil Carmody <fatphil@asdf.org> for additional tweaks.
Length: 434 bytes (excluding unnecessary newlines)
Usage is: cat title-key scrambled.vob | efdtt >clear.vob
#define m(i)(x[i]^s[i+84])<<
unsigned char x[5],y,s[2048];main(n){for(read(0,x,5);read(0,s,n
*2-k
[j],k="7Wo~'G_\216
*6^c+~y;}}
Confusing the issue (Score:4, Interesting)
I think if they want to make this message strongly they should keep it simple. Making the distinction between "free software" and "open source" will just confuse most members of the public. Isn't "open source" also about free speech? The same general principals apply don't they? Why do they have to confuse the issue?
Re:Confusing the issue (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://russnelson.com/)
Re:Confusing the issue (Score:5, Informative)
I'm not saying that their methods were not in line with their goals (though I always had reservations about the goals themselves). Name makes a difference in the image. Which is exactly the point that Eben is making in his speech when he advocates not forgetting the "Free" part.
Re:Confusing the issue (Score:5, Interesting)
(http://tom.acrewoods.net/)
But they are defining the issue by contrasting those two terms. In a sense, "open source" advocates are doing as much to defend and reclaim our civil liberties as proprietary vendors.
Free Software is about making software work for communities, whereas Open Source is about development methodologies. By confusing the two you're sending people conflicting messages... we're about better development methodologies, and, oh, you get certain freedoms too.
In the light of Microsoft, SCO, the DMCA, the EUCD, software patents, the EUIPD and all the other recent examples of the abuse of technology I'd say that Eben Moglen and the Free Software Foundation are spot on in their approach.
Transcript is good (Score:4, Informative)
Moglen is a treat to watch and hear; in an era of dismal public speakers he's a reminder that people once went to Court and campaign gatherings just to hear English rhetoric as a fine art.
Another great quote... (Score:5, Informative)
(http://photo.net/photos/swillden | Last Journal: Wednesday July 19 2006, @01:42PM)
... and one relevant to a much-debated topic here on slashdot.
Moglen makes a very lucid explanation of why the apparently-more-free BSD license is less valuable to people who believe in freedom. He characterizes the the world of free software as a "self-healing commons", that cannot be appropriated, or destroyed, and points out that a BSD-style commons is much more vulnerable to being "proprietized".
The really interesting parts of his talk, though, were the bits about open hardware and radio spectrum, and their implications on technological free speech, and of course his extensive and detailed explanation of why he thinks the free software battle is essentially already won.
Even if you don't agree with him, Eben Moglen is a persuasive speaker with very deep and powerful ideas. Very well worth reading/listening to.
Copyrights must die because FS must live (Score:3, Interesting)
IMHO this is what all the other people (like Lessing) who want a compromize between the copyright lords and the information wants to be free crowd miss. That it's not about copyrights at all, it's about free speech. In the eyes of the internet there is no difference between copyright content, porn content, and free speech content. If you have someone in a position to restrict any information, you have someone in a position to restrict any information they disagree with - it's that simple.
I think in the end though, we will not be able to rely on the government to secure our free speech rights online. We're simply gonna half to do it in ourselves in defiance. We're gonna half to force an all or nothing proposition. A) Shut down the internet, B) have no controll over content online. So other than that, the internet is completely outside the governments juristiction.
Interesting (Score:3, Insightful)
(http://nojailforpot.com/)
It's worth _listening_ to. (Score:5, Interesting)
I've put together a BitTorrent share [quackerhead.com] with a Speex [speex.org] encoding of his speech. Please be gentle.
PocketPC developers take note (Score:4, Interesting)
Hear hear. Now can someone please point this out to the PocketPC developers out there? I got myself this new fangled PDA from Microsoft and the complete lack of GPL code out there for it is truely amazing.
There are plenty of applications, most of them are shockingly written but the developer has stuck it up on Handago with a tag of $15 in the hope that he/she can make a quick buck off it.
I, on the other hand, tried to garner interest in developing a simple framework to allow embedded visual basic programmers to create today plugins really easily. The idea was that the code to produce the today screen (which had to be eVC++) would be GPL and that the code for interfacing to it would be free (for use under any licence). Anyone who improved the protocol had to share it, but you didn't have to share the code for your own application if you really didn't want to.
Unfortunately I can't programme today screens (or evc++ for that matter) for toffee to I advertised for people to help me.
I had interest from 10 people - not one of them was interested in it being GPL. They would only agree to work with me on it if it was going to be sold and licenced to "approved" people. In short, they wanted to make money from something closed and hidden.
So what can I do? Learning eVC++ is not really an option unless people want to see something in 2010. Is there anywhere I can find good people who are willing to spread the GPL word in the PocketPC community?
Re:PocketPC developers take note (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://www.vtbsd.net/)
And you wonder why you're having trouble finding GPL programmers for it? :)
You might have better luck trying to sell the same idea to the Palm community. Not only do you already have a bunch of "anything-but-Microsoft" folks, but even the new development tools [palmos.com] are based on the Eclipse open-source IDE [eclipse.org]. There are FAR more apps and developers out for Palm, many of them free [freewarepalm.com].
Free Software? Nah. (Score:2, Interesting)
(http://www.popcornfilms.com/)
Funny... that would make one think that patents are the enemy here, not copyrights. Copyrights protect the embodiment of a single idea in a concrete form. Patents protect an idea which is a process of doing something.
Ergo, both of these guys are barking up the wrong tree.
We so desperately need a spokesman like this... (Score:5, Interesting)
Stallman has done a great service to the community by keeping this aspect of the movement alive. I have had direct correspondance with him multiple times and he has NEVER failed to personally write back with elaboration on a point or a rebuff to an argument. He must have spent the majority of every day for the past 25 years spreading the case for Free Software one person at a time like that without compromise, which is how he has achieved what he has achieved and deserves respect in the community regardless of personal wranglings.
However, Stallman is so marred with 25 years of personal politics that it is difficult for him to inspire. It never seems like he can quite decouple the ideals of freedom of expression from a certain "I _AM_ THE IDEALS, RECOGNIZE ME, the GPL is the ONLY way to go" attitude.
If the entire community can be inspired to the real ideals of Free Expression, than the GPL itself would almost be irrelevant. Stallman has used the GPL as the glue to keep the community together regardless of it's beliefs on the issue of free expression, but this needs to be seen as an entirely secondary issue.
I hope to at least see Eben Moglen and similar speakers invited to more software conferences.
Braddock Gaskill
Stallman is reviled only in the USA (Score:5, Insightful)
In almost any other country, a man who has sacrificed his earning potential to pursue a larger cause is revered. In the USA, that is considered the sign of a loser or a crank. This is the root cause of the differences in perceptions.
Magnus
Re:We so desperately need a spokesman like this... (Score:5, Insightful)
I do too, and I bet it will come to pass. But (from someone who attended the speech) there's something we should realize: Moglen and RMS are championing almost exactly the same principles and agenda. The differences are in how they serve the agenda: Stallman by writing code (in the beginning) and playing the visionary, Moglen by plotting legal strategy and fighting the legal ground war; and in their particular communication styles.
So while I agree that RMS's personality may be getting worn and he is somewhat tainted by politics, it is important that we see Moglen not as a less orthodox RMS, but as a new, and perhaps more effective, conveyor of the same fundamental message. It may help to note Moglen's pointed expressions of respect and admiration for RMS during the speech.
That said, Moglen did put the free software movement in a wider legal and intellectual context better than RMS usually does. Moglen can play the visionary very well if he wishes! Perhaps if we are inspired by Moglen, we can reconsider RMS with renewed appreciation.
If you want to give away your stuff .. fine... (Score:1)
If you want to write software and give it away, I have no problem with that.
If I want to write software and not give it away (and sell it), that should be my business.
Check out this article [tyma.com].
If I try to sell it and no one buys it, sucks for me, but it doesnt affect you.
Feel free to give away all the software you want. Personally, if someone makes money off a program I wrote, I have no problem if I get paid for my work. But again - to each his own.
Ig
Re:If you want to give away your stuff .. fine... (Score:5, Insightful)
Just so you know, however, the large numbers of programmers available to open source projects, and the many, many eyes taht can review open source projects will probably render your proprietary code worthless in short order. That's not a problem for you, is it?
You intentionally misinterpret the Professors argument. It ain't free as in beer. It's free as in speech. When the code is available, when the algorithm can be examined, fixed, improved upon, everyone benefits.
Red Hat, HP, and IBM seem to be doing okay with software that's "free." How do they do that? Because the *service* ain't free - it's only the code that you can get free.
The Flatlander
A newbie's view of the Free Software movement (Score:3, Insightful)
Playing devil's advocate here (Score:3, Insightful)
eg. Lets say bicycle is an idea. The state outlaws private ownership of bicycles, because ideas belong to the masses, they are not one man's private property. So nobody can own a bicycle.
But the state places free bicycles at the corner of every street and every avenue.
So you walk to a corner, pick up a bicycle & pedal to wherever you want & leave it at the other corner. No tolls, no insurance, no gasoline, no ownership, no maintainence, no hassle.
Malthus read this and told Marx he was an ostrich.
That's the problem right there. You can't pretend man is an ostrich, so lets be benign & do away with the notion of private property & share & take just what we need & so on. This socialist utopia is ideal, but unfortunately we don't live there.
Capitalism says man is not benign - man is malign. He will want ownership. In that sense of the principle, you can own intangible ideas just as much as you own actual tangible objects - no difference. That's just the reality we live in.
Deal with it.
Not another word game... (Score:4, Interesting)
I have enough trouble getting my boss to distinguish b/t "open source" and "shareware". Throwing "free software" into the mix is going to hurt corporate adoption, not help civil liberties.
The thing that Bruce Perens, etc., understand that Stallman does not is "branding". "Open Source" is a distinct, brandable term. It has successfully fought off imitation brands like Microsoft's "Shared Source" concept. It even has a crisp, compact logo [opensource.org]. The FSF does not understand this game, and they can't seem to produce a brand name w/o botching it up with recursive algorithms ("HURD"), semantic ambiguitiy ("free software"), or phonetic confusion ("GNU"). And their logo [gnu.org] sprawls all over the place.
Furthermore, the FSF appears to have a touch of NIH syndrome ("not invented here"). Stallman tries to draw a distinction [gnu.org] b/t the terms "free software" and "open source", but they mean the same thing [opensource.org], practically speaking. Why hair-split the semantics when you could present a unified, prepackaged concept to the world?
Sigh... enough ranting. I just want to see FSF do the little things that would help give it corporate cred.
FYI, the GNU homepage has a lot of actions [gnu.org] you can take to support free software politically. Take a look.
Re:Not another word game... (Score:4, Insightful)
The open source movement aims for better software. They claim the open source development methodology achieves this. (A claim which, by the way, I think is preposterous and nonsensical.)
The free software foundation aims for a better world, by protecting people's freedom to share and use information.
I really don't see how you can claim they mean the same thing.
The Power of Free (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://www.mndfck.ath.cx/~pedro/)
When we were feeling sad about the state of copyright law, feeling that nothing would never enter public domain and become humanity's propery, there comes all these people sharing because they want to. Everything is automagically copyrighted? Fine. I'll explicitly license it to everybody. What are you evil people going to do, tell me I can't license what is mine?
Give them (or us, as I write a little free software here and there) twenty years more; the body of freely licensed knowledge will be so huge there won't be any benefit in anything proprietary. There will be so many musicians and artists licensing their cool stuff that we won't need to infringe on anyone's copyright to listen to good music. Those that try to say "Hey, come here and buy the right to hear this song" will face the question "Why? There's so many free stuff to hear I actually haven't got the time".
The last time I bought a CD was more than two years ago, because they're expensive. But I gladly buy very expensive beer and pay the artist's fee at this jazz cafe I go almost every week. The music is just too good.
Good Source of Insight (Score:1, Insightful)
(http://www.jeffmcfadden.com/ | Last Journal: Wednesday September 25 2002, @12:56AM)
It's not... (Score:3, Insightful)
(http://www.usermode.org/ | Last Journal: Tuesday April 17 2007, @09:13PM)
Free software != free speech (Score:1, Interesting)
I'm not arguing that's necessarily a bad thing, but I do object to calling something free when it really isn't.
real history of term "open source" (Score:5, Informative)
According to "Rebel Code - Linux and the Open Source Revolution" by Glyn Moody (chap. 10), the term "Open Source" was coined in Winter/Spring 1998 (February 3rd?). Eric Raymond initiated the search for a term for this "free software" coming out, and later "open source" was decided upon. It seems they were looking for something less ambigious and more business-friendly than "free software". The term itself was originally suggested by Christine Peterson of the Foresight Institute.
regarding Stallman (quoting from the book)
"Richard Stallman always viewed this shift [from terms like 'free software' to 'open source'] with alarm. 'The open source movement is Eric Raymond's attempt to redirect the free software movement away from a focus on freedom,' he says. 'He does not agree that freedom to share software is an ethical/social issue. So he decided to try to replace the term 'free software' with another term, one that would in no way call to mind that way of framing the issue."
So it seems that, historically, there is something of a difference between "open source" and "free software"
The failure of the judicial system is correctable (Score:1, Troll)
(http://www.geocities.com/jim_bowery | Last Journal: Tuesday September 19 2006, @10:20PM)
Now this isn't to say we should go around offing the lawyers but to be realistic we have to recognize we don't have lawyers worthy of technological civilization at all.
The best thing to do is correct the corrections system by providing alternatives to it. If programmers need a little competition to keep them honest why not the judiciary and the law enforcement system upon which its founded?
The best way to do this is simply render judgements and opinions and then leave it up to the enforcers to do the enforcing. Either the enforcers of the world will start paying attention to the right courts and the right rulings or they won't. If they don't we're screwed anyway but the least we can do is provide them with good judgements.
If I were a military or police man now I'd hate my job with a passion and desperately wish to find some courts with some compassion for humanity and justice rather than the leviathan that orders me throw people in prison to be "corrected" via gang-rape by the worst elements of society. That's the motivation for the enforcers. People want to be good -- particularly guys who want to be our protectors the most. Rendering judgements that actually upheld the nobility of creativity rather than forking the honors over to those with a brother-in-law sleaze-bag lawyer would be a natural consequence of correcting the corrections system so they could actually look at themselves in the mirror without averting their eyes.
Enligthening Q/A (Score:5, Informative)
(http://geeklords.org)
Moglen: Ah, the software. .
Q: That's the kind of stuff I think I was more getting at with my question. So you have somebody who creates something useful but it has a zero distribution cost, and it's useful in a way that's not, not useful like celebrity, though I'm not sure, I don't think that's useful in some ways, but it's useful in the different sense that it takes a long time to create well.
Moglen: See, the programmers I worked with all my life thought of themselves as artisans, and it was very hard to unionize them. They thought that they were individual creators. Software writers at the moment have begun to lose that feeling, as the world proletarianizes them much more severely than it used to. They're beginning to notice that they're workers, and not only that, but if you pay attention to the Presidential campaign currently going on around us, they are becoming aware of the fact that they are workers whose jobs are movable in international trade.
We are actually doing more to sustain the livelihood of programmers than the proprietary people are. Mr. Gates has only so many jobs, and he will move them to where the programming is cheapest. Just you watch. We, on the other hand, are enabling people to gain technical knowledge which they can customize and market in the world where they live. We are making people programmers, right? And we are giving them a base upon which to perform their service activity at every level in the economy, from small to large.
[1:15]
There is programming work for fourteen-year-olds in the world now because they have the whole of GNU upon which to erect whatever it is that somebody in their neighbourhood wants to buy, and we are making enough value for the IBM corporation that it's worth putting billions of dollars behind.
If I were an employee of the IBM corporation right this moment, I would consider my job more secure where it is because of free software than if free software disappeared from the face of the earth, and I don't think most of the people who work at IBM would disagree with me.
Of all the people who participate in the economy of zero marginal cost, I think the programmers can see most clearly where their benefits lie, and if you just wait for a few more tens of thousands of programming jobs to go from here to Bangalore, they'll see it even more clearly.
Sorry, but I beg to differ (Score:2)
Bandwidth is effectively a "commons". As such, unless there is some economic disincentive to prevent every user from utilizing just as much bandwidth as they can, it is subject to the problem of "The Tragedy of the Commons." Surely Professor Moglen doesn't beleive bandwidth can long continue to violate the basic principles of economics...
What's with the timestamps? (Score:2)
[60:05]
[1:00:05]
At least on my microwave, these two are exactly the same time... was the transcriber using some timebase not comprised of 60-minute hours?
Re:Did you read the whole article? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Did you read the whole article? (Score:4, Funny)
(http://millahtime.blogspot.com/ | Last Journal: Friday July 15 2005, @01:00PM)
Two alternatives (Score:3, Insightful)
2) If you read both posts you'll see that neither actually requires reading the article, one just says "But who is this guy", the other says "He's FSF Lawyer"
Re:Nonsense (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://www.barbieslapp.com/)
It is in danger if you are not allowed to not talk about how bad the BigMac sucks or are sued when you talk about the ingredients. Or, if McDonalds sue Burger King because the whopper is similar. Or the 6 year old is sued for taking apart a whopper.
Re:Nonsense (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://fennecfoxen.org/)
How patronizing "guys with little paste-it labels" (Score:2, Interesting)
(http://www.turnstyle.com/)
What a patronizing way to refer to people (like me) who are trying to make a living selling their own work.
That's how these guys think about anybody who doesn't drink their free-everything Kool-Aid.
Re:How patronizing "guys with little paste-it labe (Score:5, Insightful)
It is patronizing if you are one of the guys who wants to put a paste-it label with a price tag on every idea on earth, but I doubt he means you.
The Flatlander
Re:How patronizing "guys with little paste-it labe (Score:5, Interesting)
(http://www.johngaughan.net/)
I think the OP is objecting to people who want to put prices on all intellectual property, not just some of it. Even RMS thinks that not all software must be free. I agree. I think people who want to write free software (like me) should be free to do so, and companies like Microsoft that want to write non-free software should be free to do so.
The issue is when people try to sue the free software writers out of existence, e.g. SCO. They think all software should come from big companies with big licensing fees. Moderation is key. I use some non-free software. I also use plenty of free software. I do not impose my views of this on the public or the economy.
Re:Free Speech??!! (Score:5, Interesting)
(http://127.0.0.1:82/ | Last Journal: Monday September 26 2005, @01:53PM)
The ACLU doesn't even have a clue.
Re:Nonsense (Score:5, Insightful)
Any philosophy would appear like a religion if you don't agree with it. That's just like saying "all you people are wrong, and why don't you just shut up with your new philosophy".
Is Free Speech in danger when McDonald's doesn't publish the recipes of their menu or when KFC keeps the 13 spices and herbs secret?
How about my favorite Italian restaurants meatballs?
Almost all chefs that I've met keep their receipes secret. This is a tradition amongst chefs, and helps them distinguish themselves, much like an artist has a certain style.
As for those 13 herbs and spices... consider the following transcript from this article...
So let me tell you what I think the owners of culture were doing in the 20th century. It took them two generations from Edison to figure out what their business was, and it wasn't music and it wasn't movies. It was celebrity. They created very large artificial people, you know, with navels eight feet high. And then we had these fantasy personal relationships with the artificial big people. And those personal relationships were manipulated to sell us lots and lots of stuff -- music and movies and T-shirts and toys and, you know, sexual gratification, and heavens knows what else. All of that on the basis of the underlying real economy of culture, which is that we pay for that which we have relations with. We are human beings, social animals.
In there small way KFC is threatening freedom of speech. They've created a secret formula, and made it a celebrity. They own a piece of our culture, like George Lucus owns Star Wars, and that's how they make all that money.
As for freedom of speech, people will publish receipes, (and make movies), and others will take those receipes and improve upon them (there is no requirement to republish), and over the centuries we developed wonderful and complex delicacies and great diversity. KFC gives us a few types of food and they sustain their IP with marketing. Why is this restricted model somehow better for society just because it creates shareholder value in the pockets of a few?
Re:Free as in "profit is evil", re: Stallman (Score:4, Insightful)
That's a load of astonishingly ill-informed nonsense. The basis of intellectual property is the promotion of the creation of works that benefit society. To accomplish this, the government grants creators certain limited rights to control certain aspects of how their creations are used. You can read all about this (and nothing about your "absolute" "moral" claptrap) in the foundation of my civilized society, the U.S. Consitution.
Re:Free as in "profit is evil", re: Stallman (Score:5, Informative)
(http://www.jimdabell.com/)
It's very strange that you can't back this claim up, especially as Stallman and the FSF have made money by selling GNU software.
In fact, you can order GNU software directly from the FSF [fsf.org] right now.
In fact, why not read what the FSF have to say on the matter straight from their own website:
Re:Free as in "profit is evil", re: Stallman (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://www.petermccombs.com/)
1) You make reference to a Dr. Dobbs article, but we have no way to independently verify your reference; because it is too vague. We can't go and look at the article to determine if your paraphrase of Mr. Stallman is acurate. Certainly his recent behavior does not back up your claim (as has been pointed out by others in this thread), so your citation is merely manipulative and can't be taken as serious.
2) I have studied Kant, and I am not familiar with any so-called philosophy of anti-self. Kant's well-known contribution to philosophy was his a-priori metaphysics, which was a brilliant and thoughtful counterpoint to the empiricists. Perhaps you could recommend one of Kant's writings in which the theory of anti-self is presented and discussed?
I find your argument manipulative because of its weak backing. The references to Dr. Dobbs and Immanuel Kant do not make me comfortable as to your authority in making such assertions regarding Mr. Stallman.
Perhaps you could enlighten us with some more tangible evidence?
Re:Free as in "profit is evil", re: Stallman (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Nonsense (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Free as in "profit is evil", re: Stallman (Score:5, Insightful)
(Last Journal: Thursday July 31 2003, @10:18AM)
And it's an idea that is 100% moose hockey.
Unlike the natural properties (things which are capable of being owned), ideas are not capable of being owned. "Intellectual property" is a creature of law, designed solely to encourage the fixture of ideas (not, crucially, the creation of ideas... the purpose of copyright and patent is solely to have people WRITE STUFF DOWN so that others can access it and use it). It's since gone badly off the rails, but that's the animating purpose behind all such laws.
You can't own an idea, any more than you can own the word "dental". You can keep an idea private, but that's different from owning it.
The fact is, that "moral rights" never even appeared on the radar screen of intellectual property until well after the current model of permanent ownership of the products of all human ideas came into being.
There is no theft in the "theft" of an idea, for the simple fact that my appropriation of "your" idea does not alter or harm your own idea one iota. My taking the "idea" under my control does not, in any way, affect the control you have over the idea. As a result, ideas are simply not capable of being owned, since the only purpose of ownership is the taking under human control of those things that can be controlled.
Sorry for the heavy Hegelian slant of this (I'm hauling my concept of ownership, incidentally, out of Hegel's _Philosophy of Right_). But in a nutshell, ideas are not things, and treating them as things is stupid.
Re:Free as in "profit is evil", re: Stallman (Score:4, Insightful)
(http://sulk.sf.net/)
Stop thinking about it in terms of 'compensation'! You want society to compensate you for having a brilliant idea? No. No society has ever done this, because people have always had brilliant ideas regardless of copyright/patent law. (Ask Socrates.) Patents and copyrights are both incentives to publish. And there the resemblance between them ends.
Copyright is looking less and less justified in the light of ubiquitous near-free Internet distribution. Any information is now essentially free to publish.
Patents have separate practical enforcement problems which relate to the attempt to allow patents on software. Patents on software are wrong because they constrain the publishing of information (software is information). No other kind of patent can constrain publishing. You might as well let people patent sentences of English. (Imagine the deCSS code as a sentence of English.)
To repeat: a patent on a drug could (say) stop poor people getting the drug. But it would not stop them knowing how to make the drug, and so after the patent expires they could make it. But a patent on a piece of computer code stops people from even knowing how the code works, because no free source implementation of it is legal to publish.
Re:Differences (Score:3, Informative)
(Last Journal: Monday March 20 2006, @08:33PM)
The software comes with source code. People and businesses are allowed to re-sell and re-distribute it.
The redistributors/resellers must ensure that the software's source code be free for the users to obtain (subject to recovering media and shipping costs) and read. This includes any modifications to the software.
The end users must be given the same freedoms and conditions by the distributor as the distributor was given by the original author (e.g. must be given the source code + modifications, must be allowed to re-distribute and modify)
Synopsis: All end users must be allowed to be resellers/redistributors and developers, including of redistributed or modified versions.
Open SourceThe software comes with source code. People and businesses are allowed to re-sell and re-distribute it.
The redistributors/resellers may make the software's source code available, or they may keep it closed. The same with modifications.
The end users may be prohibited by the redistributor from taking the same freedoms given the redistributor by the original programmer (e.g. the end users might or might not get source, might or might not be allowed to modify or re-distribute)
Synopsis: End users may or may not be allowed to be resellers and/or redistributors and/or developers, including of redistributed or modified versions.
Re:Free as in "profit is evil", re: Stallman (Score:1)
(Last Journal: Tuesday June 14 2005, @06:02PM)
basicly microsft sells you the right to do something, mutch in the same way that the mafia sell you the right to set up shop in theyre area;)
Re:Free as in "profit is evil", re: Stallman (Score:3, Insightful)
Probably right in a sense. Stallman is somehwat of a visionary. He forethought many things now happening in the software world, and with his analysis, he is IMHO fairly correct.
Now Marx, surely a visionary, forethought many of the problems inherent in unrestrained capitalism.
Both of them searched (or are still searching) for solutions to the problems they discovered. From the purely scientifc analysis they got to the merely political task of proposing solutions. Their solutions are radical.
Most people (me included) furtunately disagree about their radical solutions for more or less obvious reasons. But the problems are still not solved.
So instead of abandoning both the solution *and* the analysis, one should IMHO still think about the analysis and criticize it. But the need is still there to invent other, better, moderate ways of coping with the problems.
Re:Differences (Score:5, Interesting)
(Last Journal: Monday March 20 2006, @08:33PM)
Incorrect.
While the purposes you outlined are correct, nothing was weakened. It's a use of the existing copyright system to ensure that the end-user is given the same freedoms (and restrictions) given the re-distributors. Those freedoms are the right to read the source, make modifications, and pass the code + modifications on to others.
Regarding patents: both OSS and FS allow patents to be filed. The difference is that FS requires the patent owner to license the patent for free and without much restriction (IIRC) to the end user, such that the end user's freedom to re-distribute and modify are not restrcited.
Philosophy warning, deep water ahead (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://www.berylliumsphere.com/security_mentor | Last Journal: Wednesday January 31 2007, @09:13PM)
On the other hand there's the idea that "property is theft". You see this most often in anarchist writings. Here the argument is that for one person to own something, that person has to take it away from everyone else. Then a whole coercive apparatus has to be built up to keep everyone else from taking it away from the owner.
Scarcity, according to Aristotle, is the fundamental principle of economics. If there's a limited supply of something and unlimited demand, then there needs to be some kind of rationing. Property laws provide that function.
A matter duplicator would force us to rethink our ideas about physical property because it would remove the scarcity issue. The Internet is forcing us to rethink our ideas about intellectual property for the same reason.
>whether the *creator* (or creators) of a piece of IP have the moral right to designate its usage
Well put. From a human-rights point of view, "designate the usage" means giving orders to the other six billion people on the planet about what they can do with a piece of "IP". From a utilitarian point of view ("greatest good of the greatest number") useful intellectual work should get spread as widely as possible. The compromise of copyright law was an attempt to ensure the greatest good given 18th-century distribution methods.
If I understand the rms position, it's not so much that it's bad to make money from software, but rather that it's bad to imprison the software and make money by charging for access to it.
Honest and thoughtful people can come to different ethical conclusions on these questions. I just wish more bright people would give those questions the depth of thought they deserve.
"IP" says more about speaker than about Stallman. (Score:2)
(http://digitalcitizen.info/)
I wish you had produced this article rather than related it with what appears to be your failing memory. In addition to the other essays others have already pointed to, I direct your attention to the notes on the use of the term "intellectual property [gnu.org]" or "IP". This term is bad, and Stallman misses no opportunity to say as much in his talks, because it conflates a lot of different areas of law (copyright, trademark, patent, just to name a few) and presents them as though they were one cohesive set of laws with a common ground. They are anything but that. The term also prejudices one's thinking to cut short the discussion on how these laws should be thought of--property is one possible way to think about them (not a particularly accurate way), not the only way.
If you understood Stallman's motivation and logic as well as you say you do, you would know this too. Your post is highly overrated and I hope it is moderated down.
Re:Differences (Score:1)
(http://cassens.org/)
What are you jabbering about? (Score:2)
Re:Differences (Score:5, Interesting)
I'll use an analogy that my friend told me once. Think of vegetarians. There are some people who are vegetarian because they believe killing animals is wrong. There are others who are vegetarian because some medical report says it's healthy. In other words, the former have ethical reasons, while the latter have pragmatic reasons.
So far so good. There doesn't seem to be any major conflict. The trouble starts when new findings are released which say that eating meat is actually good for you. The second (pragmatic) group will then eat meat too, while the first group WILL NOT - their point is that killing animals for food is wrong, irrespective of whether it's healthy for you or not.
The first group is Free Software, who advocate freedom as the primary goal and software as merely incidental. The second group is Open Source, who always advocate sharing source for practical benefits (more eyes examining etc), but don't say anything about freedom and liberty. If there is some exploit in the future that makes it seem like closed-source or proprietary software might offer benefits that open-source cannot, then the shear between the two groups will be readily apparent, with the Open Source advocates using closed-source for its benefits, and Free Software advocates holding out on principle.
Re:Free as in "profit is evil", re: Stallman (Score:2)
(http://www.pjrc.com/ | Last Journal: Thursday June 27 2002, @04:31PM)
Absolutely wrong!
The authors and publisher of a newspaper has no moral right to determine how I use my lawfully acquired copy of their newspaper. It's up to me if I want to read it, discard it, or wad it up to aid starting wood burning in my fireplace.
Likewise, Microsoft has no moral right to determine is I use Word to write a business letter, or write advertising material for products I might sell, or any other function. How I use the copy I have legally obtained is up to me. The author has absolutely no moral right to dictate how I make use if it.
In fact, I would argue that it is morally obectional for authors to attempt to control exactly how people may make use of their works, after having lawfully obtained them.
There is a distinction between using work and publically performing it, such as movies.
Re:Free as in "profit is evil", re: Stallman (Score:2)
(http://wandership.ca/ | Last Journal: Tuesday February 01 2005, @08:03PM)
One problem I have always had with Objectivism is that the natural property to which an individual is entitled seems always to be quite an arbitrary accident of history.
You accept that individuals have an 'absolute right' to own and control the use of intellectual property, and presumably personal property as well. Yet Objectivists are appear to be the first to act as apologists for multinational corporations engaged in exceedingly questionable practices in developing countries, and the first to cite the profit motive as justification for, say, bribery of government officials in these developing nations, clear cutting, and various other acts which are profitable for individuals but not society as a whole.
It isn't enough to say that, eventually, the invisible hand will step in to correct these sorts of abuses.
Re:Free as in "profit is evil", re: Stallman (Score:2)
When evaluating whether or not something should be a right, we need to evaluate the real world ramifications of a system, and avoid asking slanted questions out of the context of reality. When looking at the real world ramifications of IP, it becomes obvious that it can definitely be improved upon.
Intellectual property is a system of rewarding creative endeavours using a metaphor for real property. There is no real evidence that this is necessary, and in fact, most observation of society shows that this lottery system of rewarding creation does nothing to effectively promote the useful arts and sciences. Effectively, the winners in this "game" are those with enough capital to hedge their bets, in other words, large corporations.
Further, when examining how things really work, we understand that most of what is created, is in fact created by everyday programmers, scientific researchers (many of whom make less than 40K), and so on, not "innovators" like Bill Gates. Many of these innovators aren't even paid by the corporations that benefit from patenting their ideas, but instead are paid directly by the government, one example being NIH funded drug research. We can come to the conlusion that in many cases, patents are nothing more than a way of handing control over ideas and markets to large coporations, not rewarding innovation. In fact, this control over markets interferes with innovation, since it effectively discourages small business and fledgling innovators from entering the market at all. Given that most innovation comes from paying people a living salary, not vast sums of money, we have to question whether the obnoxious sums of money that Bill Gates gets paid to control their work is necessary at all. When weighing the "right" of "innovators" to charge whatever they want for a product, vs the right of everyday people to have a stake in the American dream, I think that the latter should take precedence. Therefore, a system that doesn't explicitly go out of it's way to allow smaller businesses and fledgling innovators entry into the market is unworkable. A system of rewarding innovation the doesn't explicitly allow those who are underpriveledged access to the knowledge and information necessary for them to have an equal chance runs against the principles that the US was founded on, and even if it didn't, runs against basic human decency. Again, this is my opinion, clearly you think that corporate dominated society is a good thing.
So, here are some questions:
1. How often do IP laws directly benefit engineers, scientists, and researchers? vs instead massively benefiting their employers, and then giving the real innovators living wages.
2. How much innovation does IP interfere with?
3. Is promoting invention a question of massively rewarding innovators or instead providing them with the resources necessary to create? Which is more important? Don't most innovators create new products on a subsistence salary with large amounts of (currently corporate) resources? Couldn't we promote just as much innovation by making sure that everyone had at least a minimum standard of living, and then give them the resources necessary to pursue their vision?
This is in fact how I get paid. I get paid a decent salary to program. I'm not rich, not poor, but get paid an ok amount. It's highway robbery that employers are able to jack the price of software through the roof. This is not necessary to promote innovation, and makes no sense. It does nothing more than create a bigger divide between the rich and poor, and rewards "innova
Re:Free as in "profit is evil", re: Stallman (Score:2)
What makes the GPL unique isn't the amount of control that it has, but instead is the fact that this control doesn't directly serve large corporations. The GPL doesn't directly serve large corporations, and whatever service it does provide to the likes of an IBM, it does much more to free the grip of corporate software control than it does to help it. Just because the GPL benefits IBM doesn't mean that we should quit supporting it. An atmosphere containing oxygen also benefits IBM, that's not an argument against it.
After all, in our current system, what's the alternative? The alternative is handing complete control back to IBM, Microsoft, et al. You don't fight tyranny by giving in to it. I think that's a point of the GPL, is to show that copyrights and patents are a horribly flawed system that gives too much control to the owners of a particular idea. By arguing against the GPL, IP owners such as Bill Gates are in fact supporting the spirit of RMS's ideas, which to me are about removing the coporate control over ideas that is enforced through our current patent and copyright system. The viral nature of copyrights didn't start with the GPL, the viral and hierarchical nature of ideas has been exploited by private power for decades in order to overcharge for the valuable service of being there first. The controversy is over the fact that for the first time the viral nature of copyrights isn't serving to enforce and protect private dictatorships such as Microsoft.
Re:Nonsense (Score:1)
Even if Free Speech isn't in danger, people who are allergic to any of the secret ingredients certainly are.